Ever since the switch was turned on at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey in 1969, the public has received exposure to radiological releases.

Most often the releases have been extremely small, fractions of what is allowed by federal standards. But, there have been times when releases were high, according to statistics compiled by the Brookhaven National Laboratory. The public has been largely unaware of these releases, which are odorless, colorless and tasteless. And that leads to the obvious and monumental question: Have 45 years worth of radiation exposure negatively impacted public health in Ocean County?

At 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, experts from the National Academies of Science will hold a forum on an upcoming cancer study in communities around Oyster Creek at the Toms River Ramada Inn on Route 9.

Inquiries are regularly received at the Clean Water Action NJ office from citizens seeking answers on a possible link between living near a nuclear plant and health risks. We hope that the NAS study will adequately address these questions.

However, there is cause for concern about the study's scope. Continual exposure to low-level radiation can affect human DNA and damage cells. Is there a link between radiation exposure and Ocean County's high autism rate? Will the study look at the rates of miscarriage and birth defects? Will those who sought cancer treatment, or died, out of state be included in statistics? Will the study examine cancer incidence, as well as cancer fatalities?

Scientific studies can be frustratingly difficult in proving cause and effect. One only needs to read Dan Fagin's Pulitzer Prize-winning "Toms River, A Story of Science and Salvation" to realize what might seem obviously apparent is often difficult to prove. Fagin showed that years of research that cost millions of dollars still left many with unanswered questions about Ciba-Geigy's role in cancer clusters found in neighborhoods where the company discharged thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the groundwater.

And now a similar investigation will take place around Oyster Creek, where reports on emissions tend to be spotty and difficult to find. And sometimes, they are simply wrong. An NRC document shows that a disconnected joint in the emissions stack went undetected for four years, meaning emissions data between 2006 and 2010 was inaccurate.

Radiation does occur naturally in the environment everywhere. Background radiation has often been cited by industry and officials from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in answer to questions from the public about a relationship between health effects and exposure from nuclear plants. We've all heard the line, "you can get more radiation from a tomato," or from televisions, cell phones and dishes.

But the radiation that is released by a nuclear plant is different. The cocktail of radioactive isotopes released by a nuclear plant is the byproduct of nuclear fission. Exposure to these radiological isotopes can affect the body's DNA, and can attack glands, bones, muscle and organs. Genetic defects can occur in fetuses, and exposure can cause miscarriage.

These radiation emitters are measured according to a half-life, or how long they remain radioactive and harmful to humans. Some have a half-life of minutes, others years. Strontium 90 and Cesium 137 can remain radioactive for up to 300 years. These radioactive isotopes that are emitted either routinely or by accident can pose a health risk by contaminating the food chain, groundwater and surrounding environment.

A previous NAS study, commonly referred to as the Bier VII report, concluded that no amount of exposure to continuous radiological releases can be considered safe.

Researchers in France, Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom have found increased pediatric cancer rates in communities surrounding nuclear plants. The research helped prompt Germany to abandon its nuclear program, and today, about 74 percent of the country's power supply is generated by renewable energy sources, namely solar and wind. Germany is a shining example of what political will can achieve when public health and safety take precedent over industry profits.

It is imperative that the NAS researchers take a close look at the 1993 Brookhaven National Laboratory report that charted radiological releases at Oyster Creek, one of which was measured at more than 1 million curies in 1979.

Given that statistics by the state Department of Health and Senior Serviceshave indicated Ocean County has the highest pediatric cancer rate statewide and the third-highest autism rate, it is crucial that the NAS compile a fair, accurate, and easily accessible assessment of Oyster Creek's impact on our health and the health of future generations.

Then, elected officials and regulators might finally realize it is time to turn the switch to the OFF position at Oyster Creek.

Janet Tauro is board chair of Clean Water Action NJ and founding member of GRAMMES (Grandmothers, Mothers, and More for Energy Safety).